I only just saw the coustic amps on the hifidirect.com.au page and I must admit - my eyes said "WOW".. Do they really look as good as they do in the pictures????

Anyway - these babys are quite cheap - and I'm wondering about their performance for a SQ setup.. I've been looking at Audison and Co but can anyone tell me how these stack up (probably looking at the 320QE 4x 40w RMS - bridged to 2x160W RMS for FS duties)..

Thanks

from all i've heard they are good SQ amps, i have a 321QE (320QE) and its a very good looking amp in the flesh.

mines a different colour to the one on there though....where theirs is yellow, mine is black. I picked mine up from JB ex display for $310

Yep, their site lists "Heat Shields" - wonder how hard they are to track down - change the colour depending on your mood

the HFD site is largely out of date.

so yes, the coustic 320QE has been replaced by the 321QE, 480 by 481, etc. largely a cosmetic change, with carbon-fibre-look plate instead of yellow. still easily detachable for custom painting if you wish.

remain excellent VFM amps IMO. quality power and xovers, and reliable.
coustic amps

audison have just release in australia (from CAA Member/distributor/sponsor RM Audio), the new SRx series. they have an entry-level price but their design draws on the strengths of the excellent LRx and VRx series. you'll find them excellent VFM too.
RM audio: audison amps

if you thought there wasn't enough choice, then there's also the newish cadence range (from CAA sponsor zylux). pretty big range, all excellent VFM too, and available from jb hifi.

cadence

take your pick!

Coustic amps are excellent value for money. Of course they won't really compare to higher models of Audison amps, but in their price range they're just about the best you'll find (IMHO). The current models of Coustic amps have a carbon-fibre style heat-shield, but I imagine somewhere like JB Hifi wouldn't have too much trouble tracking down the other colours.

I used to run a 320QE for my whole system, and now I've got a Coustic 401DB monoblock on my sub. Very solid, well built amps with lots of good features and sound very decent as well.

[ December 10, 2002, 18:14: Message edited by: Zed ]

Oh dear, my poor wallet

OK, silly follow up question time:

Where does the Alpine range fit in in terms of build/sound quality? I like some of the time alignment features offered with these - but are they as good or better than the Cadence/Coustic/Audison SRx range? More on par with LRx/VRx ?

EDIT: Upon further looking I can't see the time alignment advertised on the amps themselves - I know some of the HUs have this though - was this just a sales person just blabbering on with nonsense again? Or are there some models of the amps with this built in?

Thanks for your time guys!

Dan

[ December 20, 2002, 13:20: Message edited by: OneNonly ]

Alpine V12's are good amps... probably the best of the japanese brands... IMO, they'd be on par with coustic, cadence Q and Z series, Audison Srx and lrx series but not up there with the top offerings from DLS, Audison, Cadence, Orion etc...

As for time alignment, I'm pretty sure the 2 and 4 channel models don't have any, but I think the monoblocks just might (could be wrong)

yeah, alpine make high quality equipment, amps included. i've used older alpine amps for years. you'll hear similar stories of high performance, high build quality, excellent reliability, good xovers, high resale, and power outputs easily at least those advertised.

IMO, they are better amps than coustic or cadence Z/Q series. most obvious is build quality, whereas sound quality improvements may not be apparent unless teamed with high quality speakers (that reveal any difference).

but like most jap-designed amps, they provide very clean SQ. some would say too clean! and lack a bit of warmth associated with many euro amps like audison.

i think most people will then tell you that one is not necessarily better than the other...just different.

and mickee is right in suggesting only the monoblocs (MRD-M300/500) feature inbuilt time alignment. so not the 2/4/5-channel ones.

I though the idea of time alignment was to delay the front channels by a couple of millisecs so they play at the same time the sound reaches the front from the subs..

Don't quite understand why the Monoblocks would need the delay then..

you're right. usually it's best to delay the fronts relative to the subs, presuming the subs are farther away from your ears than the fronts (which is mostly the case).

then again, i've had good results delaying the sub relative to the splits too. most likely a result of a phase shift of the subbass which seemed to work in my setup. although since then, i've reverted to the traditional delay of the front stage relative to the sub.

so i agree that TA on the subamp is not a great feature.